What you don't buy that argument? Seems ridiculously one-sided, you guys should love it

I actually bought MORE CDs because of Napster or downloading. Having a chance to listen to stuff first let me know more easily what I wanted to buy, rather than taking a blind risk on a whole album. Back in the late 90's, you couldn't really hear stuff easily unless you had the whole album, and most whole albums sucked so bad that it was better just to listen to the few good songs on the radio.

Conversely, the few stupid songs I did download that did NOT result in an album purchase were not really "losses" to the music industry; I'd never have purchased them anyway. I just downloaded them because they were there.

This is one reason why itunes is such a brilliant idea (IMHO), showing largely that "free' downloading provided a service that the music industry was too stupid to realize people would actually PAY for.

I actually bought MORE CDs because of Napster or downloading. Having a chance to listen to stuff first let me know more easily what I wanted to buy, rather than taking a blind risk on a whole album. Back in the late 90's, you couldn't really hear stuff easily unless you had the whole album, and most whole albums sucked so bad that it was better just to listen to the few good songs on the radio.
Conversely, the few stupid songs I did download that did NOT result in an album purchase were not really "losses" to the music industry; I'd never have purchased them anyway. I just downloaded them because they were there.
This is one reason why itunes is such a brilliant idea (IMHO), showing largely that "free' downloading provided a service that the music industry was too stupid to realize people would actually PAY for.

It just seems to be an inherently flawed argument:
It's a logical fallacy to speculate on what would've happened if the guy did nothing.
It's fine for us to speculate on what could have happened if the guy did something.
What actually happened is irrelevant.

But we do know what happened when he did something. Two robbers got bullets in the ass and no one else was hurt.

I was typing the below as you posted your second post about "logical fallacy." I don't understand what you mean in this second post at all (meaning nothing snarky except I just don't get what you are saying, so please clarify). We can speculate and calculate probabilities based on whether he did NOTHING, or whether he did SOMETHING.

My contention is that the story would still be largely unchanged even if somebody DID get hurt. They'd just add how many other bystanders were NOT hurt, implying that they all were "saved" by his action. Let's face it, Americans love vigilante justice and it makes for good ratings. We consider it somehow weak to do nothing in the fact of an assailant and even if the outcome is less-than-perfect, we are willing to overlook a lot if the person "tried" to stand up for themselves. Often, this is just pure foolishness (it's also very culturally-specific... not all places other than USA would have this view of interference/action).

I'd be curious to see an actual, unbiased breakdown of the stats, but I'd say your odds of getting shot are probably much higher when in a situation where in the group some random bystander has a gun and decides to use it than when everybody does nothing. Stats do nothing to satisfy primal fears, though, so the worry of "what if" and the seeming safety of a gun far outweighs any actual mental calculation.

The story would still be largely unchanged even if somebody DID get hurt. They'd just add how many other bystanders were NOT hurt, implying that they all were "saved" by his action. Let's face it, Americans love vigilante justice and it makes for good ratings
I'd be curious to see an actual, unbiased breakdown of the stats, but I'd say your odds of getting shot are probably much higher when in a situation where in the group some random bystander has a gun and decides to use it than when everybody does nothing. Stats do nothing to satisfy primal fears, though, so the worry of "what if" and the seeming safety of a gun far outweighs any actual mental calculation.
It makes for less interesting reading, certainly, but for all the talk of the "good old days," a lot of studies show that in this period you're far LESS likely to be killed than in the past. Steven Pinker even wrote a recent book about it... though I have to admit that I haven't had time to read it yet (or willingness to pay the ridiculous markup for English-language books in Japan).

You'd also have to account for the prevention/deterrent aspect, i.e. did the fact that one of the victims fought back deter future crime not only by the perpetrator of the original crime, but his peers? Which is impossible to quantify. However, I slam the Left for constantly endorsing strategies that have no measurable outcomes, so I'll have to eat this one I guess.

I think the NRA would argue that increased handgun ownership is one of the reasons that crime is less (I would argue that it is a statistically insignificant reason, but whatever).

I was typing the below as you posted your second post about "logical fallacy." I don't understand what you mean in this second post at all (meaning nothing snarky except I just don't get what you are saying, so please clarify). We can speculate and calculate probabilities based on whether he did NOTHING, or whether he did SOMETHING.
My contention is that the story would still be largely unchanged even if somebody DID get hurt. They'd just add how many other bystanders were NOT hurt, implying that they all were "saved" by his action. Let's face it, Americans love vigilante justice and it makes for good ratings. We consider it somehow weak to do nothing in the fact of an assailant and even if the outcome is less-than-perfect, we are willing to overlook a look if the person "tried" to stand up for themselves. Often, this is just pure foolishness.
I'd be curious to see an actual, unbiased breakdown of the stats, but I'd say your odds of getting shot are probably much higher when in a situation where in the group some random bystander has a gun and decides to use it than when everybody does nothing. Stats do nothing to satisfy primal fears, though, so the worry of "what if" and the seeming safety of a gun far outweighs any actual mental calculation.

I think the odds are small that he speculatively saved anyone. Frankly, I'm just glad two assholes got shot in the ass and arrested.

I'd be curious to see an actual, unbiased breakdown of the stats, but I'd say your odds of getting shot are probably much higher when in a situation where in the group some random bystander has a gun and decides to use it than when everybody does nothing. Stats do nothing to satisfy primal fears, though, so the worry of "what if" and the seeming safety of a gun far outweighs any actual mental calculation.

That's where you'd be wrong. An innocent bystander rarely gets hit by a stray bullet if an armed citizen draws and fires there gun. By doing nothing results in far more deaths and injuries. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million serious crimes a year are diffused by civilian use of a firearm. I can't remember ever hearing of someone other than the criminal getting shot when shots are fired. I know this info is posted somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

You'd also have to account for the prevention/deterrent aspect, i.e. did the fact that one of the victims fought back deter future crime not only by the perpetrator of the original crime, but his peers? Which is impossible to quantify. However, I slam the Left for constantly endorsing strategies that have no measurable outcomes, so I'll have to eat this one I guess.
I think the NRA would argue that increased handgun ownership is one of the reasons that crime is less (I would argue that it is a statistically insignificant reason, but whatever).
BTW - I'm a huge Pinker Fan. Reading his refutation of the Blank Slate now. I'm totally unsurprised you've read him.

I edited my post heavily because we were posting at the same time; damn interwebz!

If we're talking about deterence, you are correct that it is difficult (not impossible) to quantify, and would be rather complex. On the other hand, assuming deterence as you suggest assumes a common rationality or set of reactions on which victims, criminals, and everybody else are equal.

They are not equal, however. I would argue for a "random" variable involved, namely an attraction to violence. So, the presence of potential violence might actually make crime MORE attractive to a certain class of criminals than non-violent crime. It's just no "fun" for everybody to do nothing, but the chance to have a shootout might have a certain appeal. This random variable is not rational, and also assuredly not conscious. But, it assumes that there is more to a robbery than just "wanting money/stuff for free." There is also the pleasure of the act that fills some sort of psychological need or illness (like, why do those rich housewives often get picked up for shoplifting? Knowing that they'll get in trouble doesn't actually DETER them from the crime).

It's been ages since I read the studies, but IIRC something like 5% of the general population has a problem with one of the frontal parts of the brain (the part that contributes to sociality, sharing, etc.) However, something like 40% of those incarcerated have this issue. (My numbers are probably FAR off, I'm just saying it's a HUGE difference). The point of this is only to say that you can't approach the issue assuming that we're all the same or that the "deterent" value will be the same for any group of 10 people. For 7, it might be... for 2, it may have no effect at all... but for one... the "deterent" might give him a hard-on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crane's

That's where you'd be wrong. An innocent bystander rarely gets hit by a stray bullet if an armed citizen draws and fires there gun. By doing nothing results in far more deaths and injuries. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million serious crimes a year are diffused by civilian use of a firearm. I can't remember ever hearing of someone other than the criminal getting shot when shots are fired. I know this info is posted somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

Again, before we can claim "2 million diffused crimes" we have to know whether each and every one of those crimes would have resulted in death and/or injury. Otherwise, we're back to my "Music Industry/Napster" principle. I'm saying we LIKE the story of "diffused crime" more than that of "dangerous vigilantes" and so our stats aren't quite the same, or perceived in the same way. Before we can "believe" those statistics, we need to see their methodology and how they accounted for their numbers.

As well, we'd have to understand tabulation... for example, if a bystander draws a weapon and fires at a robber... and the robber fires back (hitting another bystander in the process), the tabulation of the violence would NOT blame the bystander with the gun... but the criminal who fired back at him. However, one could easily factor in, based on the behavior of the criminal before the shootout (and this could be done by a behavioral analyst watching security footage), the likelihood that the shooting was in reaction to the bystander, not just because the criminal "wanted" to shoot somebody. We don't have those stats or info, because they make for a cumbersome, poorly-rated (and expensive) news story.

I'm not against CCW, or guns. Again, I probably have more background and upbringing with weaponry than most... I'm just saying that one set of stories feeds a necessary social/psychological desire that the other does not, and these desires color the way we "read" information. Usually, when a truly unbiased methodology is used, the results are often paradoxical/contradictory to what we've been "taught" to believe.

It seems good old Dade County FLA has very good records concerning this.

Quote:

Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?
Ordinary people, even if they have passed a firearms safety class, cannot be trusted to use guns competently, it is sometimes claimed. The guns will be taken away by criminals, or the gun-owners will shoot an innocent bystander by mistake, it is sometimes predicted. Wherever the concealed carry issue is raised in the future, it can be predicted with confidence that these objections will be raised by reform opponents, including many law enforcement professionals who claim expertise on the issue.

The existing body of research provides no support for these fears. The best evidence we have about what happens when people have carry permits is the experience of the 1/3 of American states that issue such permits routinely. From these states, the most detailed data are those compiled by the Dade County (Miami) police. As discussed above, the police kept track of every known incident involving the county's more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period. In that six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

The most detailed information about civilian defensive gun use has been compiled by Professor Gary Kleck (a liberal Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Common Cause) in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. In 1992 the American Society of Criminology awarded the book the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the previous three years. In Point Blank, Kleck studied computer tapes from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Survey, for the years 1979-85. Analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:

- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.
- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.
- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.
- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun. [147]
From here:

/Quote

It would seem that you need to worry more about the criminals and LEOs...